Dark Energy? Pshaw! We just keep merging with baby universes…

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
There's lots of theories out there.
Especially cosmology, you start to see theories based on assumptions, which are based on assumptions, which are based on other assumptions, which are supported by estimates, which are created using assumptions about particles that have never been detected, and so forth.

If just one estimate or assumption or not yet detected particle turns out to not be true, the whole thing collapses like a house of cards.
 
theories based on assumptions, which are based on assumptions, which are based on other assumptions, which are supported by estimates, which are created using assumptions about particles that have never been detected, and so forth.

I think this is a bit backwards.

From the article:
a model for this might fit the data better than the standard cosmological model

Cosmologists aren't trying to build a theory on a bunch of questionable assumptions, they're trying to build a theory by fitting the data.

Theoretical particles that have never been detected are proposed to resolve a discrepancy between a model and the data; they aren't the basis of building the model in the first place.
 
Especially cosmology, you start to see theories based on assumptions, which are based on assumptions, which are based on other assumptions, which are supported by estimates, which are created using assumptions about particles that have never been detected, and so forth.

If just one estimate or assumption or not yet detected particle turns out to not be true, the whole thing collapses like a house of cards.
Underpinned by piles of mathematical wankery. It's no surprise that every week we see the headlines: 'our understanding of x has been questioned by this discovery' or 'Webb has smashed this theory'... every frick'n week!

TP
 
Back
Top